[21] An extreme example of Dr. Moffatt's want of sensitiveness to the real nature of the New Testament literature may be quoted from page 315 f., where he speaks "of the perplexing differences between the Christian literature of the first and that of the second century. The latter reveals a series of striking personalities, while the New Testament literature, which is practically synonymous with the literature of the Church during the first century, has only one writer whose personality is well marked, i.e. the Apostle Paul. Luke, the historian, is known to us mainly from his writings, and these, from their very nature, are objective rather than subjective. The John of Asia Minor, whom we can detect behind the Johannine literature, must have been a commanding figure, but we [22] cannot feel him breathe and move as we can feel Paul. On the other hand, the second century and its literature reveal strong and versatile personalities from Ignatius to Irenaeus, from Polycarp to Tertullian, from Marcion and even Papias and Hegesippus to Justin, Tatian and Clement of Alexandria."

What do we know about the personality of Papias or Hegesippus or of their life? Nothing at all. What do we know of their works? Nothing but two or three fragments and a lot of riddles. They are not human beings to us. We know not one single action of their lives, and absolutely nothing about their character; and we can only speculate about the nature of their influence on contemporary society, and even about the method and quality of their literary work. Yet these are the names which Dr. Moffatt transforms into personalities; and for these third or fifth rate people he throws overboard Peter 1 and James and John and the rest of the New Testament writers.

FOOTNOTES:

1 1 On Peter, see note p. 26.